This theory should be fairly simple to validate with a one or two simple questions.
The first is: do areas previously burned by wildfires burn again? One assumes they do, then what is the scale of those fires?
Second....and most important WRT these fires and suppressing them is: How many firefighters are paid to suppress these fires? There seems to be a correlation to the number and scale of these fires, the number of firefighters employed, and a lack of timber management.
Less timber management = More fires & more intense fires.
More frequent & intense = need more firefighters to suppress them.
Sort of has a circular logic.
Exit question: If the timber is more effectively managed, are the fires fewer and easier to control?
Since I don’t live on the west coast and am not intimately familiar with this in granular detail. So just aking the questions.
We never had these fires before the spotted owl stopped the lumber industry from proper forest management. This is avoiding the real issue.
Go here: www.ForestsforOregon.net and find the truth of what is going on.